The Real PapaBear 0 Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 how about taking the timekeeping away from the referee? Let the ref referee the game and let someone else start and stop the clock? That way time-wasting becomes a thing of the past oveernight. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted August 7, 2014 Author Share Posted August 7, 2014 The referee has to be in control of what's happening on the field of play; supposing the player going off or the one coming on takes a swipe at at an opponent, then it's going to be down to the 4th official. Sorry just don't like it. Let the fourth official take this responsibility. Let him be the one who makes sure players leave and enter the field at the appropriate time. It will mean less stoppages, and that will be good news. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hildy 0 Posted August 7, 2014 Author Share Posted August 7, 2014 how about taking the timekeeping away from the referee? Let the ref referee the game and let someone else start and stop the clock? That way time-wasting becomes a thing of the past oveernight. I'm less keen on this. I don't want to see the game stretch from 90 minutes - and it can sometimes last near to 100 - to an even longer period. The game is timed at an hour and a half to take account of natural stoppages and breaks but things have got out of hand, especially with substitutions and free kicks near the box. The first thing to address is the time it takes to substitute a player. Without a great deal of difficulty, this can be reduced to zero. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 I'm less keen on this. I don't want to see the game stretch from 90 minutes - and it can sometimes last near to 100 - to an even longer period. The game is timed at an hour and a half to take account of natural stoppages and breaks but things have got out of hand, especially with substitutions and free kicks near the box. The first thing to address is the time it takes to substitute a player. Without a great deal of difficulty, this can be reduced to zero. The length of the game should be 90 mins, including natural stoppages and the ideal scenario is to keep it a s close to 90 as we can. On that we are all agreed. In reality however , a substitution can take 45 seconds, but the ref adds 15 or an 'injured player can take 2 minutes to get treated and the ref adds 30 seconds. So in reality, the game takes 2 and a half minutes longer than it would do if the timekeeping was independent. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 how about taking the timekeeping away from the referee? Let the ref referee the game and let someone else start and stop the clock? That way time-wasting becomes a thing of the past oveernight. Been considered and rejected many times in the past; I think because football/soccer is fundamentally different from American Football where most times the end of each play creates a natural stoppage in the play. It wouldn't stop time wasting at all; it would just take it out of the referee's judgement; in fact it might increase it for that very reason. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 The length of the game should be 90 mins, including natural stoppages and the ideal scenario is to keep it a s close to 90 as we can. On that we are all agreed. In reality however , a substitution can take 45 seconds, but the ref adds 15 or an 'injured player can take 2 minutes to get treated and the ref adds 30 seconds. So in reality, the game takes 2 and a half minutes longer than it would do if the timekeeping was independent. Don't get your logic at all on this. Surely the game would take longer if an independent time keeper added more time than the ref and the difference in your examples is 2 minutes not 2 mins 30 secs anyway? In any event I don't agree that having an independent timekeeper would change the time it takes for substitutions or injuries or time wasting. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Been considered and rejected many times in the past; I think because football/soccer is fundamentally different from American Football where most times the end of each play creates a natural stoppage in the play. It wouldn't stop time wasting at all; it would just take it out of the referee's judgement; in fact it might increase it for that very reason. American footbal is timed to suit TV, nothing else. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 American footbal is timed to suit TV, nothing else. The stoppages certainly suit the TV advertising and often particularly in the Superbowl artificial stoppages are created and the players just have to stand around for the advertising. I'm not sure that the game was designed that way but you may well be correct. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real PapaBear 0 Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 Don't get your logic at all on this. Surely the game would take longer if an independent time keeper added more time than the ref and the difference in your examples is 2 minutes not 2 mins 30 secs anyway? In any event I don't agree that having an independent timekeeper would change the time it takes for substitutions or injuries or time wasting. ok, let me explain. If the injured player is 'at it' and spends 2 minutes on the ground knowing that he's eating up time because the ref will only add 30 seconds, then we have 2.5 mins of wasted time. If however the player knows that if he spends two minutes on the ground and two minutes will be added then there is no incentive for him to play act. Once players realise that time wasting is no longer a tactic, I think we'll be amazed at how quickly it stops 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 ok, let me explain. If the injured player is 'at it' and spends 2 minutes on the ground knowing that he's eating up time because the ref will only add 30 seconds, then we have 2.5 mins of wasted time. If however the player knows that if he spends two minutes on the ground and two minutes will be added then there is no incentive for him to play act. Once players realise that time wasting is no longer a tactic, I think we'll be amazed at how quickly it stops Well I can see where you're coming from but my logic tells me it's only 1.5 mins "wasted" i.e. 2.0 - 0.5. Not sure that it's necessarily the case that an independent timekeeper would add more time than the match referee, there might well be circumstances where a referee adjudges time wasting, say by a goalkeeper taking a goal kick, when the independent judge would be reluctant to add any time. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.